What is the Age of Consent in Nevada?
Under Nevada law, the current legal age of consent is 16 years old. A minor who is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age may consent to engage in sexual activity with another whoever is less than 18 years of age. The victim and the offender cannot be siblings, cousins, or other close relatives. The victim must be at least 16 years old for the offense of statutory sexual seduction to not apply. If both the victim and the perpetrator are teenagers , the charges of statutory sexual seduction of the older teenager must be dropped.
Sexual assault of a victim under 16 years of age that is committed by a defendant who is under the age of 18 is a Category B felony. The punishment upon conviction for a Category B felony is a definite term of imprisonment in the Nevada Department of Corrections for not less than one year and not more than six years, inclusive of the potential for parole and a fine of not more than $5,000.
A defendant who is charged with statutory sexual seduction with a victim who is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age is presumed not to have been able to know the age of the victim. The defendant is given the presumption of a defense to be able to prove that the defendant reasonably believed that the victim was of the age of consent.
The History of Consent Laws in Nevada
Understanding Legal Age of Consent in Nevada
Not unlike much of the country, Nevada consent laws are recent and have evolved over the last century. The pertinent statutes that govern sexual conduct involving minors are NRS 200.366 and NRS 200.364. The first law prohibits engaging in sexual conduct with a child under the age of sixteen. The latter prohibits engaging in sexual conduct with a child aged fourteen or fifteen. Both sections were enacted as part of Nevada’s criminal code in the session laws of 1977. Prior to the enactment of these laws, there was no legal age of consent in Nevada.
Although it may seem somewhat trite to mention, consent laws are often seen as a necessary means of safeguarding minors from exposure to sexual conduct before they are able to engage in it knowingly and intelligently. An increasing body of social science research indicates that a juvenile’s ability to engage in sexual conduct is not wholly developed until he or she reaches approximately age sixteen. As such, many consent laws, including NRS 200.366 and NRS 200.364, were enacted on the premise that adolescents below the age of sixteen could not be relied upon to give legal consent to engage in sexual conduct. While the intent behind these laws is well understood, their application in the modern era is complicated by the increase in access to the Internet by young people. The advent of the Internet has made explicit sexual material more widely available and accessible to minors than ever before.
In the past, consent laws, particularly NRS 200.364, have been the topic of intense debate. The law’s vagueness and overly broad language led to calls for change, and the 1997 Nevada State Legislature responded. Senate Bill 38, which narrowly defined "engaging in sexual conduct" eliminated concerns that the law would be misapplied to conduct such as forcible kissing or fondling. The bill passed the state Senate unanimously.
In 1998, Reno resident Andrew Newman was charged by police under the laws prohibiting sexual conduct with minors. His crime was that he interacted with and encouraged an undercover police officer to undress while they were communicating over the Internet through the use of a webcam. Newman was charged with a violation of NRS 200.364, which prohibits engaging in sexual conduct with a child aged fourteen or older. At trial, Newton was represented by defense counsel, who established that the definition of "engaging in sexual conduct" as defined by the Nevada Legislature did not apply to communications which took place via the Internet. After informing the jury that there were no specific provisions for crimes relating to Internet communications, the prosecutor sought to convince the jury that the words of the relevant consent laws should be broadly construed to include the entire realm of sexual acts. The jury found Newman guilty, and he was sentenced to a prison term of one year to five years. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the decision in 2000.
On review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the Nevada Legislature intended to limit its prohibition against the performance of sexual acts for minors to only those which take place in-person. As such, the trial court applied the law too broadly and the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. The Supreme Court’s holding that the statute did not apply to Internet communications was a highly restrictive interpretation of the language of the statute. Nonetheless, the decision gave rise to a great deal of public outrage. The 2001 Nevada State Legislature responded to these objections by significantly broadening the scope of consent law, and in doing so, overturned the 2000 Supreme Court holding.
Presently, Nevada consent laws focus on the age of the participants involved in sexual conduct. While the defendant’s knowledge of and intent to engage in criminal conduct is irrelevant to liability, the victim’s knowledge of the defendant’s age is relevant. This provision assumes that it is common for minors to have the ability and the state of mind to know the age of someone with whom they are engaging in sexual conduct, and that ignorance of the defendant’s age will not excuse criminal activity.
Consent Law Penalties
The age of consent laws in Nevada are strictly enforced. In fact, sexual relations with a minor can result in felony charges even where both people are minors. In addition to serving time in prison, juvenile adjudication for minors might result in being placed on the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives. Even if the minor is the perpetrator within the relationship, this can have dire consequences in their future.
Sexual assault can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or felony in accordance with NRS 200.366 in the state of Nevada. Sexual assault can also be classified as first-, second- or third-degree. First-degree sexual assault is a category A felony. This means that a conviction can result in life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or with a possibility of parole after from 25 years to life in prison. A second-degree sexual assault conviction is a category B felony that can result in anywhere from 2-15 years in prison. The prison sentence options for third-degree sexual assault are 1-4 years. Any convicted person will also be required to register as a sex offender.
If under the age of 18 and charged with sexual assault, juveniles will be dealt with by the juvenile justice system as opposed to the criminal justice system. This means that they will be adjudicated through a juvenile court rather than a district court. If the juvenile is adjudicated as a juvenile sexual offender, the same penalties apply as if the offender was an adult.
Juvenile convicted offenders will first be ordered to treatment or counseling, then a period spent on probation. If juvenile sanctions do not achieve the goals set out by the juvenile court, then the minor may be adjudicated as a juvenile sexual offender. This means the minor will be sentenced to incarceration at a youth facility until they are released and supervised as a sexually violent offender. There are no opportunities for parole in a juvenile facility.
Close-in-age and Other Exceptions
Although the legal age of consent in Nevada is 16, the law does make some exceptions. These exceptions are commonly referred to as close-in-age exemptions. In order to qualify for a close-in-age exemption under NRS 200.364, the state must prove that the age difference was at least five years, and that either the victim was 16 or 17 years old with a mental disease or disorder which diminished the victim’s capacity to understand or consent to the act , or that the defendant had committed no other offense under NRS 200.364 or 200.366.
Nevada law specifically states, "it is not a defense that the defendant did not know the age of the victim if the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the person [was] 16 years of age or older." If a defendant is charged with statutory sexual seduction under NRS 200.368, a conviction is still possible even if the victim was between 16 and 19 years of age, if the prosecutor can show that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was under 16.
Consent Laws & Education and Youth
The age of consent plays a pivotal role in shaping educational programs and policies in schools across the state of Nevada. In particular, Title IX of the Education Amendments provides a framework for addressing sexual harassment and violence in educational settings. It requires institutions to take swift and effective action in response to allegations of sexual misconduct. Institutions that receive federal funding – including public K-12 schools and colleges – are required to provide training to students and employees on general safety practices, as well as on the reporting of suspicious or unsafe behavior. However, this does not necessarily include education on consent or safe sexual practices. While this is not mandatory, many schools do offer sexual health classes that encompass education on safe sex and consent. Considered a controversial subject in recent years, the concept of "affirmative consent" is taught, in varying capacities, in some Nevada schools. When you look at it through a legal lens, there are a number of ways to think about the implications of consent – or the lack thereof – in Nevada schools. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, in high school, nearly one in ten students have experienced physical or sexual dating violence. A separate study found that about 40 percent of college women reported experiencing sexual violence, and nearly 30 percent of college men reported experiencing sexual violence. These staggering figures could be significantly cut down when students are educated on consent and sexual health practices. The results of the above studies underscore the importance of educating youth on consent, including what affirmative consent means. The "yes means yes" approach to consent is being adopted in schools, as well as in policy, by both lawmakers and schools. Though it is not currently a requirement that Nevada schools include such training in their curriculum, it certainly is an option that schools can choose for the health and safety of their students.
Consent Laws in Other States
When comparing Nevada’s age of consent laws to those of other U.S. states, there are some notable differences and similarities that are worth understanding. For instance, several states have an age of consent that is higher than 16, making Nevada appear more permissive by comparison. On the other hand, there are also states with a lower age of consent.
Another important law to consider is the "Romeo and Juliet" exception, which exempts from prosecution individuals who engage in sexual relationships with people close enough in age to them. This law has been enacted in many states, and typically includes an element of consent, as Nevada does in NRS 201.213 (which is applicable to "consensual" sexual penetration).
Some states set the "close in age" threshold at 3 years, above the 2-year threshold in Nevada , while others make no exemptions at all. If charged with violating age of consent laws, it is worthwhile to examine relevant exemptions so you can avoid a serious conviction. The allowable defense will apply only if both partners are below the minimum age and no coercion was involved.
The states with the closest legal ages of consent to that of Nevada are California (18), Oregon (18), Utah (18) and Arizona (18). All four of these states in addition to Nevada have a close-in-age exception. Still, even these states have set penalties for sexual activity with minors, which typically derive from the age of the younger partner (as opposed to the older party). Even if someone thought their sexual activity with someone below the age of consent was legal, a court could still determine that it was not.